BSIP-0008: more discussion

bsip-0008.md

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
     Discussion: <https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/452>
                 <https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20104.0.html>
                 <https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20499.0.html>
-    Worker: tbd
+    Worker: 1.14.18
 
 # Abstract
 
@@ -140,6 +140,16 @@ will have the power to set the fee.
 * Cryptonomex does the development and testing of the feature: *(4 to 6 weeks)*
 * Hard fork for implementation of the feature: *Monday Feb, 15th*
 
+# Worker Proposal
+
+The worker proposal `1.14.18` is dedicated to poll shareholders about their
+willingness to implement the Privacy Mode feature in a hard fork. It serves the
+private investor as an indicator whether shareholders would appreciate his
+investment and agree to upgrade the protocol accordingly.
+
+Since the implementation is funded by a private investor, the worker only pays
+approx. $300.
+
 # Discussion
 
 For the best user experience this proposal is best combined with proposal for
@@ -157,6 +167,37 @@ pay 15x more for a Private transfer than a Public transfer.
 Percentage based fees are not possible with Private Transfers either because the
 amount being transferred is *private*!
 
+## Worker as Poll
+
+When the project is complete, the new software will be presented to the
+witnesses as an opportunity to hard fork by switching to running the new
+package/software. At that time witnesses will face a choice:
+
+1.  Honor the proposal at the time the decision to spend the private investor's money was made, or
+2.  Honor the proposal at the time the product is delivered (if it has changed in the mean time).
+
+Acting against the wishes of Vote 2 could get them fired if enough people
+disagree with them keeping the implied commitment of Vote 1.
+
+Acting against the wishes of Vote 1 means that BitShares gets a reputation for
+reneging on a prior vote upon which an entrepreneur has relied.
+
+This means that even if some voters have changed their minds about this proposal
+by installation time, they might *not* decide to fire otherwise faithful
+witnesses for deciding to obey Vote 1 in order to preserve BitShares' reputation
+in future deals.
+
+Considering the participation rate in the worker poll: those who do not care
+enough to vote are ignored in the decision making process as it is supposed to
+be.
+
+## Privacy Mode not Most Pressingly Needed
+
+The argument was raised that the Privacy Mode as proposed here is not the
+feature most pressingly needed for BitShares right now.
+
+## Worker Poll Interval too Short
+
 # Copyright
 
 This document is placed in the public domain.